The heterogeneous assemblage Two kinds of process Beginning Technique and method Diagrams Consistency
The heterogeneous assemblage
Mar 29, 2023
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
The heterogeneous assemblage Two kinds of process Beginning Technique and method Diagrams Consistency
The heterogeneous assemblage does not homogenize its components. It is held to- gether by relations of extereority - the ca- pacity of the components to affect and be affected.
Obviously, all components are material. Likewise all components have an expres- sive potential - the fingerprint for example. But some expressive components are less bound to a specific assemblage. They play a functional role in the forming of more complex assemblages - the gene code and language are the most important examples.
The architectural composition is a hetero- geneous assemblage that consists of dif- ferent components - some linguistic. The components with expressive capacity are not bound to the other components through relations of interiority.
Initially, one must distinguish between two kinds of processes. The first can be char- acterized as problem solving. It perceives the process as a realization of a goal and believes that the freedom lies in the choice of solution. However, the real freedom lies in the in- vention of a problem. The second process invents a problem through a material prac- tice. A new problem is a hitherto unseen map of relations - the problem cannot be separated from the composition. It is not defined outside the process. Paradoxically, the composition is the problem! Furthermore, in the second process there is simultaneity between problem and solution - (you don’t know what it’s about until it’ s finished).
Obviously, any architectural process is comprised of both.
The practitioner shifts his focus from the abilities of a supposed creative subject to the manipulation of the components of the composition. There is no invention without techniques. Difference is not invented in the mind of the practitioner. It is an immanent rela- tion in the heterogeneous assemblage of the composition. The act of inventing is a bringing forth of difference and it cannot be divorced from a material practice.
A beginning is an intermezzo. It is a simple operation. The complexity resides in the material that is being investigated by the probing of the techniques. Inspiration requires an absence of inten- tion. It is found through an artisitc practice, not the other way around. One compose in order to be inspired. In a sense intention is short-sigthed. The composition is more consistent than the intention of the per- former.
Techniques and methods fall on either side of the irreducible gap between the sayable and the visible.
The techniques are probes oriented to- wards the investigation of the immanent differences of the material - i.e. the hetero- geneous assemblage of the composition. The relation is formless. You can only approach the relation indirectly through the manipulation of the extensive properties of the composition.
The intuitive method is a way of inventing new concepts. It is turned destructively to- wards existing and insufficient concepts. The new concepts do not inform practice what to do. They relieve bad concepts al- ready integrated in practice in the form of clichés. Secondly they play an integral part in the assemblage of the composition.
The architectural media produce measures for an architectural space that does not yet exist. It does so in the interval between non-representation and notation. On one hand a drawing is an actual distribution of different material components. On the oth- er hand most one these components have expressive capacities. In other words: they are members of a notation.
Two ways of defining the diagrammatic na- ture of the drawing (and the architectural media in general):
1. The drawing is a map of relations. 2. The drawing has an operational likeness to the architectural construction.
The process that invents a problem strives towards consistency, not completion.
The assemblage emerges. Consistency is not invented in the mind of the practitioner. It is cultivated in the map of relations of the composition. It is like a resonance between the different components of the composi- tion that influence and transforms them without homogenizing them.
The process finishes when the consistency has reached a point when the manipula- tions of the practitioner do not increase the intensity of the relational web between the components.
The material components are distributed in a pragmatic system whereas the linguistic components are distributed in a semiotic system.
The pragmatic system is not the content of the semiotic system. Rather they represent two separate material domains or systems each articulated in their own manner.
The heterogeneous assemblage does not homogenize its components. It is held to- gether by relations of extereority - the ca- pacity of the components to affect and be affected.
Obviously, all components are material. Likewise all components have an expres- sive potential - the fingerprint for example. But some expressive components are less bound to a specific assemblage. They play a functional role in the forming of more complex assemblages - the gene code and language are the most important examples.
The architectural composition is a hetero- geneous assemblage that consists of dif- ferent components - some linguistic. The components with expressive capacity are not bound to the other components through relations of interiority.
Initially, one must distinguish between two kinds of processes. The first can be char- acterized as problem solving. It perceives the process as a realization of a goal and believes that the freedom lies in the choice of solution. However, the real freedom lies in the in- vention of a problem. The second process invents a problem through a material prac- tice. A new problem is a hitherto unseen map of relations - the problem cannot be separated from the composition. It is not defined outside the process. Paradoxically, the composition is the problem! Furthermore, in the second process there is simultaneity between problem and solution - (you don’t know what it’s about until it’ s finished).
Obviously, any architectural process is comprised of both.
The practitioner shifts his focus from the abilities of a supposed creative subject to the manipulation of the components of the composition. There is no invention without techniques. Difference is not invented in the mind of the practitioner. It is an immanent rela- tion in the heterogeneous assemblage of the composition. The act of inventing is a bringing forth of difference and it cannot be divorced from a material practice.
A beginning is an intermezzo. It is a simple operation. The complexity resides in the material that is being investigated by the probing of the techniques. Inspiration requires an absence of inten- tion. It is found through an artisitc practice, not the other way around. One compose in order to be inspired. In a sense intention is short-sigthed. The composition is more consistent than the intention of the per- former.
Techniques and methods fall on either side of the irreducible gap between the sayable and the visible.
The techniques are probes oriented to- wards the investigation of the immanent differences of the material - i.e. the hetero- geneous assemblage of the composition. The relation is formless. You can only approach the relation indirectly through the manipulation of the extensive properties of the composition.
The intuitive method is a way of inventing new concepts. It is turned destructively to- wards existing and insufficient concepts. The new concepts do not inform practice what to do. They relieve bad concepts al- ready integrated in practice in the form of clichés. Secondly they play an integral part in the assemblage of the composition.
The architectural media produce measures for an architectural space that does not yet exist. It does so in the interval between non-representation and notation. On one hand a drawing is an actual distribution of different material components. On the oth- er hand most one these components have expressive capacities. In other words: they are members of a notation.
Two ways of defining the diagrammatic na- ture of the drawing (and the architectural media in general):
1. The drawing is a map of relations. 2. The drawing has an operational likeness to the architectural construction.
The process that invents a problem strives towards consistency, not completion.
The assemblage emerges. Consistency is not invented in the mind of the practitioner. It is cultivated in the map of relations of the composition. It is like a resonance between the different components of the composi- tion that influence and transforms them without homogenizing them.
The process finishes when the consistency has reached a point when the manipula- tions of the practitioner do not increase the intensity of the relational web between the components.
The material components are distributed in a pragmatic system whereas the linguistic components are distributed in a semiotic system.
The pragmatic system is not the content of the semiotic system. Rather they represent two separate material domains or systems each articulated in their own manner.
Related Documents
